Penis size and GDP growth. Is there a correlation?

From 2011, but still a meaty read.

Finnish economist Tatu Westling grabs the subject but cautions "although all evidence is suggestive at this stage, the `male organ hypothesis' put forward here is robust to exhaustive set of controls and rests on surprisingly strong correlations". Intrigued? Here are excerpts from his paper that penetrates the issue.

Male Organ and Economic Growth: Does Size Matter?

Abstract

This paper explores the link between economic development and penile length between 1960 and 1985. It estimates an augmented Solow model utilizing the Mankiw-Romer-Weil 121 country dataset. The size of male organ is found to have an inverse U-shaped relationship with the level of GDP in 1985. It can alone explain over 15% of the variation in GDP. The GDP maximizing size is around 13.5 centimetres, and a collapse in economic development is identified as the size of male organ exceeds 16 centimetres. Economic growth between 1960 and 1985 is negatively associated with the size of male organ, and it alone explains 20% of the variation in GDP growth. With due reservations it is also found to be more important determinant of GDP growth than country's political regime type. Controlling for male organ slows convergence and mitigates the negative effect of population growth on economic development slightly. Although all evidence is suggestive at this stage, the `male organ hypothesis' put forward here is robust to exhaustive set of controls and rests on surprisingly strong correlations.

Countries should be cautious once penile length exceeds 16 cm.

First, the GDP in 1985 is found to experience an inverted U-shaped relationship with the male organ. One result is the collapse in GDP after male organ exceeds the length of 16 centimetres. It is also noteworthy that countries with below 12 centimetre male organs are generally less developed. Penile length alone can explain over 15% of the between-country variation in 1985 GDP.

Also the sixties to mid eighties correlate negatively with penis length.

Second, the average growth rates from 1960 to 1985 are found to be negatively correlated with penile lengths: a unit centimetre increase in its physical dimension is found to reduce GDP growth by 5 to 7% between 1960 and 1985. Quite remarkable is the finding that male organ alone can explain 20% of the between-country variation in GDP growth rates between 1960 and 1985. 

However, the importance of the male organ is higher than that of a political regime of a country.

Regarding the relative importance of political institutions in shaping economic development, it seems that male organ is more strongly associated with GDP growth than country’s political regime type. Male organ diminishes the negative effect of population growth on the level of GDP in 1985 compared to MRW. Moreover, controlling for penile length slightly slows the rate of convergence between rich and poor countries. As intriguing as both of these effects are, they are arguably within the margins of error.

How can this be explained? What are the causalities for penile dominance and is there a Freudian component?

Since this paper has merely discovered statistical associations and not causalities, only stylized interpretations are discussed. The first discussed explanation is biological. Penile length is related to testosterone (Boas et al., 2006), which in turn has been shown to influence risk-taking (Apicella et al., 2008). If this link holds within-population, then the interpretation could be that for some yet unknown reason the moderate risk-taking countries – those with average penile lengths and hence testosterone levels – would have the highest GDPs. The second explanation, a more Freudian in tone, revolves around the self-esteem. As is discussed in Wylie & Eardley (2007) and Winter (1989), men with larger penises possess a feeling of greater sexual competence. The essence of the argument is, without elaborating any further at this stage, that the marginal utility of income would be lower in countries with large male organs. These countries would then end up with lower working hours and GDPs. However intriguing, it is somewhat questionable whether these effects would manifest themselves in a highly aggregated, cross-country context.

The most pressing question at this moment is how was the data of male organs collected. A sensitive question indeed but it needs to be raised.

The data regarding the physical dimensions of male organs is openly available online and has been compiled [by an unknown party] from an extensive number of sources3. Large part of the data has been collected by health authorities but some observations are self-reported. Due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter, self-reported data might be biased. Without elaborating further, it seems that the observations fit anticipated patterns. Still, measurement errors can not be ruled out.

Some measurement errors aside

Male organ can be considered quite convenient a variable for two particular reasons. First, body parts are well defined and relatively easy to measure. Regarding the latter point, the erect length of male organ is used. Second, as is explained in Wylie & Eardley (2007), unarguably penile length might entail certain cultural connotations. However, they might be less severe than those pertaining to, for example, economic freedom or corruption. Hence male organ has many advantages over more contentious variables such as political regime types, IQ, social or economic indicators each of which might be subject to biases of various sorts. It is not unreasonable to conclude that, even allowing for some measurement errors, of all variables used in the study the male organ is actually one of the least problematic.

Other variables show faint or no correlation

Indeed the evidence that dimensions of body parts and penile lengths are correlated, is mixed. Siminoski & Bain (1993) show that height and penile length are positively albeit weakly correlated. On the other hand, according to Shah & Christopher (2002) shoe size and penile length are unrelated. Taking the conservative stance that the physical dimension of male organ is related to body size, endogeneity might result as higher GDPs increase statures over time.

The economic cost of long penises is relative poverty.

Estimates with both sets of controls suggest that an inverse U-shaped relationship exists between GDP and the physical dimension of male organ. Hence countries with average-sized male organs tend to be developed, while those at the extremes of the penile length spectrum are relatively poor.

The most surprising result is that governance is overrated.

Somewhat surprisingly, penile length was a stronger determinant of economic development than country’s political regime type at the Polity IV autocracy–democracy spectrum. However, political institutions are notoriously endogenous, and hence the result must be taken with reservations. Encouragingly, the results were robust to Africa controls.